School counsellors, have you had a lot of requests from school staff lately asking for interventions with adolescent boys who are idolizing Andrew Tate and his ilk within the rapidly evolving “manosphere”? I was introduced to Andrew Tate in 2022 by a 17-year-old student who had been removed from his Social Justice 12 class by a frustrated teacher who was out of ideas. The student was interjecting in her class to promote Tate’s philosophies, calling him a “visionary” with a direct line into the hearts and minds of adolescent boys. At this time in my school counselling career, I was naïve to what is now being referred to as the manosphere, a network of online communities and influencers specifically focused on men’s issues and definitions of masculinity. I invited the student to take the captain’s seat at my office computer so he could educate me about Andrew Tate and the world that created him; he took me on a tour of male influencers with a manifesto that surprised me, and what I learned was unsettling and eye-opening.
The virtual spaces that make up the manosphere vary quite widely, but recurring themes revolve around male dominance within gender hierarchies, misogyny, competition, status, and gender-based power (Ging, 2019). Some of these sites promote highly adversarial views of gender and narratives of male grievance, while more positive sites frame self-improvement within traditional masculine ideals (Ging, 2019; McCashin, 2024). As my young client oriented me to the manosphere, my initial reaction was to see this as a problem. However, deeper exploration suggests that Tate and his friends are actually responding to a more complex underlying problem. What this student shared with me was not unique to him; it was representative of a groundswell of behavioural and attitudinal shifting in adolescent boys in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. But why?
During the pandemic, adolescents experienced significant disruptions to their routines and social connections, alongside increases in anxiety, depression, and emotional distress (Racine et al., 2021). Simultaneously, their engagement with digital media intensified, with significant and measurable increases in screen time and online interaction (Nagata et al., 2022). As a result, key aspects of adolescent identity formation – including belonging, comparison, and social positioning – shifted to occur in virtual spaces. While young people have always navigated identity development within social systems shaped by peers, family, and school culture, increased screen time now has our teen boys engaging through online ecosystems that expose them to competing messages about what it means to be a man. While some emphasize connection and emotional awareness, others promote male dominance, control, and status (McCashin, 2024).
The concept ofprecarious manhood (Vandello & Bosson, 2008) offers a framework for understanding manhood as a social status that must be earned and continuously demonstrated, rather than as a stable identity. Within this framework, manhood is understood as an unstable status that can be threatened, particularly through perceived weakness or femininity. With one’s masculinity under constant threat, it becomes easier to understand why teen boys feel pressure to respond with behaviours that demonstrate aggression, risk-taking, and the rejection of anything that might be perceived as weakness (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Vandello & Bosson, 2013). In adolescence, young people become particularly sensitive to social comparison, and masculinity becomes something that is performed, monitored, and corrected within peer groups. Way (2011) notes that boys often begin adolescence with strong relational capacities intact but gradually begin to restrict their emotional expression as they internalize social norms that equate emotional openness and vulnerability with femininity. While cultural definitions of manhood vary in meaningful ways, certain patterns are consistent across contexts. Masculinity is frequently associated with strength, independence, and emotional control (Connell, 2005; Courtenay, 2000).
In our modern world, adolescent boys are receiving contradictory messages about what is expected of them. In school counselling contexts, we tend to encourage emotional expression, vulnerability, and relational awareness, likely because these traits are associated with better mental health outcomes (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Courtenay, 2000); at the same time, broader cultural narratives continue to reward dominance, control, and emotional restraint. Within precarious manhood theory, the tension between these two ideals is significant. If masculinity must constantly be proven, vulnerability can have lasting negative consequences for social acceptance and social status. For many boys, this creates a double bind: to be emotionally open is to risk status, but to suppress emotion is to risk connection and wellbeing.
In this context, the manosphere begins to make sense. A case study from McGill University (James, 2023) describes Andrew Tate as portraying a highly structured model of masculinity defined by wealth, control, and certainty. For adolescent boys navigating ambiguity, this clear roadmap to manhood can be comforting as it offers a path to one’s ideal place in the world (Ging, 2019). Tate and the manosphere do not create this longing for clarity in our adolescent boys; rather, they respond to it. When our adolescent boys connect with this type of messaging, we may not recognize them picking up an ideology. Instead, we notice cynical comments, jokes, and refusals to engage with certain educational content we provide. This can look like defiance, but it may also be a coping strategy to manage male identity in a system where that status feels unstable and subject to constant evaluation.
Research on help-seeking behaviours in males supports this interpretation. Addis and Mahalik (2003) found that conformity to traditional masculine norms is associated with a lower willingness to seek counselling support. Courtenay (2000) similarly notes that emotional restriction and avoidance of care can function as demonstrations of masculinity. Avoidance in this context then becomes a form of communication. This reframes the work for school counsellors.
What this looks like in practice is often less straightforward than it seems. A student may present with fixed positions, dismissive language, or a refusal to engage. If we respond only to the surface behaviour, we risk reinforcing the very dynamics we are trying to interrupt. Instead, the task is to listen for what sits underneath the position. What is being protected? What feels at risk?These conversations shift when the focus moves away from the content of what is being said and toward the meaning it holds. When an adolescent boy speaks about respect, status, or success, there is often an unspoken question embedded within it: where do I fit, and how do I know I matter? If we can stay with that question without immediately correcting or shutting him down, we create space for something more complex to emerge.This does not mean stepping back from accountability. Harmful ideas still need to be named, but when young men experience challenge without humiliation, and curiosity without endorsement, they are more likely to remain in the conversation long enough to reflect. Over time, this opens the possibility of expanding how they understand themselves and what it means to be a man.
Removing an adolescent boy from class for pushing back against perceived threats to his masculinity may resolve the immediate classroom tension, but it does not address the underlying fear. Shutting down these kinds of conversations may reinforce defensiveness and limit future engagement (McCashin, 2024). A more effective starting point is to reduce the experience of identity threat by approaching these conversations with curiosity. While we may not agree, we can listen to understand. What do our young clients find compelling about the influencers they admire? By asking curious questions we invite reflection. This does not mean validating harmful beliefs. It means creating enough safety for those beliefs to be critically examined.
Only by allowing adolescent boys to maintain their dignity and agency in these conversations can we hope to introduce gentle challenges. By inviting my young client to educate me about Andrew Tate, I gained access, through dialogue and relationship-building, to understand what appealed about this ideology. By demonstrating unconditional positive regard, I was able to uncover what my client longed for: success, respect, belonging, and to be taken seriously. Integrating the theory of precarious manhood gave me compassion for the complex road our adolescent boys are walking in the digital age and has allowed me to walk alongside them in a way that feels more respectful and supportive. Recognizing and validating the complexity of precarious manhood makes it possible to provide our young clients the safety that is necessary for challenge and change to occur.
References
Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.5
Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402669
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1
Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401
James, W. (2023, February 20). Andrew Tate: A case study on the effects of online influencers on students’ education. McGill University, Define the Line. https://www.mcgill.ca/definetheline/article/andrew-tate-case-study-effects-online-influencers-students-education
McCashin, D. (2024). Understanding the Andrew Tate phenomenon among boys: A state of the literature review and recommendations for future directions. Dublin City University Anti-Bullying Centre. https://antibullyingcentre.ie/observatory/resource/understanding-the-andrew-tate-phenomenon-among-boys-a-state-of-the-literature-review-and-recommendations-for-future-directions/
Nagata, J. M., Cortez, C. A., Cattle, C. J., Ganson, K. T., Iyer, P., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Baker, F. C. (2022). Screen time use among US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(1), 94–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4334
Racine, N., McArthur, B. A., Cooke, J. E., Eirich, R., Zhu, J., & Madigan, S. (2021). Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(11), 1142–1150. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets: Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection. Harvard University Press.
THE AUTHOR:
Lisa Porter, CCC, former school counsellor, current Associate Director at City University M.Ed. School Counselling program
